An empiricist defence of singular causes

Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 46:47-58 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Empiricism has traditionally been concerned with two questions: What is the source of our concepts and ideas? and How should claims to empirical knowledge be judged? The empiricist answer to the first question is ‘From observation or experience.’ The concern in the second question is not to ground science in pure observation or in direct experience, but rather to ensure that claims to scientific knowledge are judged against the natural phenomena themselves. Questions about nature must be settled by nature — not by faith, nor metaphysics, nor mathematics, and not by convention or convenience either. From Francis Bacon to Karl Popper empiricists have wanted to police the methods of scientific enquiry.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,752

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-06-30

Downloads
16 (#1,187,304)

6 months
6 (#851,135)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Causation and Observation.Helen Beebee - 2009 - In Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock & Peter Menzies (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford University Press UK.
Understanding causation.Anselm Winfried Müller - 2021 - Synthese 199 (5-6):12121-12153.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Theory and Evidence.Clark Glymour - 1981 - Philosophy of Science 48 (3):498-500.
Why do Scientists Prefer to Vary their Experiments?Allan Franklin - 1984 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 15 (1):51.

Add more references